Absurd

September 8, 2009
Editorial
Vague Cyberbullying Law
Lori Drew acted grotesquely if, as prosecutors charged, she went online and bullied her daughter’s classmate, a 13-year-old girl who ended up committing suicide. A federal court was right, however, to throw out her misdemeanor convictions recently. The crimes she was found guilty of, essentially violating the MySpace Web site’s rules, are too vague to be constitutional.

Many people were understandably horrified at the story of Megan Meier’s death. The Drews and Meiers were neighbors in O’Fallon, Mo. Prosecutors charged that Ms. Drew was part of a conspiracy that set up a MySpace profile for a fictional 16-year-old named Josh Evans and posted a photograph of a boy without his knowledge. That violated MySpace’s terms of service.

“Josh” flirted with Megan, according to prosecutors, then said he was moving away. Finally, he told her he no longer liked her and that “the world would be a better place without [her] in it.” After Megan committed suicide, Ms. Drew allegedly had the account deleted.

The jury acquitted Ms. Drew of intentional infliction of emotional distress, but convicted her of accessing a computer without proper authorization in violation of the federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. Her crime was, in essence, violating MySpace’s terms of service.

As Judge George H. Wu of the United States District Court for the Central District of California rightly held, a federal law that makes violating a Web site’s terms of service a crime is unconstitutionally vague. The Supreme Court has held that the Constitution requires laws to contain “relatively clear guidelines as to prohibited conduct.” Ms. Drew’s conviction fails this test. The average users of any Web site has no reason to believe they are breaking federal law by violating terms of service.

It is also unclear which violations will be prosecuted. MySpace prohibits many things, including knowingly providing false or misleading information. It is hard to believe that people who lie about their age, weight or physical appearance are guilty of a federal crime.

Lawmakers should enact laws that can withstand challenge to give prosecutors tools to go after bullying of all kinds. What prosecutors cannot do is stretch federal law to label run-of-the-mill Internet activity as criminal.

First of, why in the world would a mom cyber bully a thirteen year old? I really cant explain why , but the truth is it happened. Yet, this is not the worst part of the issue: the thirteen year old ended up committing suicide. You would think this mom would actually go to jail or pay the consequences, yet ironically with all the laws, there isn’t one to accuse her. How in the world is there no law of such shocking act?

“The crimes she was found guilty of, essentially violating the MySpace Web site’s rules are too vague to be constitutional.”
How can crimes of such intensity, not have consequences?
From this, we can conclude there is something going on with the penal system of the United States. This mother indirectly killed a child and nothing is going to be done about it. In other words it’s okay to cyber bully even to the extent of driving someone to commit suicide?How can there be a consequence for shoplifting, but not for conducing someone to commit suicide?

As Judge George H. Wu says“a federal law that makes violating a Web site’s terms of service a crime is unconstitutionally vague. The Supreme Court has held that the Constitution requires laws to contain “relatively clear guidelines as to prohibited conduct.”

If this is the case then why aren’t there any clear guidelines? What is this mediocre world we live in? We expect everything to work as desired, but don’t do anything about such great importance circumstances.
Now that it happened, I believe it’s time we take action. That child deserves protection and the right to life!